dhcpcd-discuss

On 29/05/17 14:52, Nathan O'Meara wrote:
> One small update.  I'm not sure if this is expected behavior, as while 
> reading the man page, I did notice that it says dhcpcd has to be 
> running for an interface to delegate a prefix to it.

This is still the case, but it's not as extreme as before.
dhcpcd-7, all interfaces are always running no matter what, but are now 
controlled with IF_INACTIVE, IF_ACTIVE,IF_ACTIVE_USER.

Some more work possibly needs to be done here.
I would rather remove that section from the documentation and fix any 
bugs around that.

> I had to add an explicit 'disable' section for my lan0 interface.  
> Without that section, dhcpcd was leasing an address on my LAN (granted 
> by dhcpd running on the same system), which itself wasn't a huge 
> problem, but for some reason it would fail to renew, and after failing 
> to renew, dhcpcd deleted the route to 10.0.0.0/24 
> <http://10.0.0.0/24>, which had been statically assigned before dhcpcd 
> leased a 10.0.0.x address, causing the router to drop offline.  I 
> fixed this by adding these lines to my config:
>
> interface lan0
> nodhcp
> nodhcp6
> noipv4ll
>
>
> I then did some tweaking and figured out how to request a larger 
> prefix, and then delegate two different /64s to my two separate LANs, 
> so I had to add another section of the above for my second lan:
>
> interface dmz0
> nodhcp
> nodhcp6
> noipv4ll
>
> Based on the 'dhcpcd must be running for an interface in order to 
> delegate to it' part of the man page, I think this is expected, and I 
> will just keep that in my config, but in case it isn't (since it seems 
> to be a behavior change since 6.11.3, where I did not need that 
> interface section for my LAN interface), I wanted to report it.

See the above.
Please open a task about this on dev.marples.name so we can work on 
fixing it.

You could also disable everything globally and enable it per interface.


# Top section
noipv4
noipv6

interface eth0
ipv6

And you get the idea.

Roy

> Nathan
>
> On Sat, May 27, 2017 at 10:01 AM Nathan O'Meara <araemo@xxxxxxxxx 
> <mailto:araemo@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
>
>     It appears that dhcpcd-9999 fully passed my test. Initial startup
>     looked fully correct.  I power cycled the modem and it was able to
>     re-acquire both an ivp4 and ipv6 address, and the default ipv6
>     route looks correct.  I never saw the ipv6 route get removed on
>     'watch -n 1 route -6n', so I'm not sure if that's correct, but it
>     appears to be functioning.  I do see the 'adding route to
>     <ipv6prefix>' in the log during re-bind though, which I didn't
>     under 6.11.3.  7.0.0-rc1 had something weird going on that tried
>     to renew on all my interfaces, and I think that was actually
>     causing the v6 problem on rebind.  9999 didn't do the same.
>
>     As a final test, I manually deleted the v6 default route while my
>     modem was off.  when it turned back on, dhcpcd-9999 got both v4
>     and v6 leases correctly, and set up the default routes correctly.
>
>     Thank you for the help,
>     I'll watch for the next 7.0.0 release and re-test on that.  Enjoy
>     Spain.
>
>     Nathan
>
>
>     On Sat, May 27, 2017 at 9:39 AM Roy Marples <roy@xxxxxxxxxxxx
>     <mailto:roy@xxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
>
>         On 27/05/2017 14:36, Nathan O'Meara wrote:
>         > I just tried 7.0.0-rc1, and while it works similarly on
>         first bind, I
>         > did notice that it seems to be trying to get DHCP leases on all
>         > adapters, not only the one listed in the config.  It also
>         seemed to fail
>         > to rebind the ipv6 address at all after I power cycled the
>         modem.. about
>         > to try 9999.
>
>         I don't expect any to pass the renew or rebind, that seems an
>         issue with
>         your upstream.
>         We can analyse tcpdumps to work out more.
>
>         We are only concerned about the correctness of the routes
>         being applied
>         after getting a new lease.
>
>         Roy